Himachal Pradesh High Court
Bhoop Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 19 November, 2018
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Revision No. 388 of 2018 .
Judgment reserved on 16.11.2018 Decided on : 19th November,2018 ____________________________________________________ Bhoop Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh .....Respondent Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the petitioner : Mr. Ankush Dass, Sood, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Chauhan, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans Additional Advocate General with Mr.R.P.Singh and Mr.R.R.Rahi, Deputy Advocate General.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge Present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner/accused against his cancellation of bail by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, exercising the power under Section 437 (5) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.) on an application preferred by the respondent/State after passing of order dated 17.5.2018 by learned Division Bench of this High ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 22:58:06 :::HCHP Court in CWPIL No. 45 of 2018 directing that it would be open for the State to move an appropriate application .
seeking cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
2. I have heard Shri Ankush Dass Sood, learned Senior Advocate, under the instructions of Shri Rakesh Chauhan, learned counsel, for the petitioner/accused and learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of complaint preferred by the complainant Anu Thakur Range Forest Officer, Koti, on 12.1.2018, an FIR No. 11 of 2018 was registered in P.S. Dhalli under Sections 32, 33, 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act and Section 379 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'). During investigation, petitioner/accused was arrested on 20.1.2018 and was remanded to police custody for three days and thereafter he was released on bail on 24.1.2018, subject to following conditions:-
"1. That he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.
2. That he shall appear in the Court as and when so directed.
3. That he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 22:58:06 :::HCHP court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
4. That he shall not leave India without the .
previous permission of the Court and
5. That he shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected."
4. Pending investigation, learned Division Bench of this High Court, on the basis of letter petition, taking suo motu cognizance in CWPIL 45 of 2018, had issued notice to the State, against an illegal felling of trees in Forest Department Shalot wherein on the basis of affidavit dated 16.5.2018, filed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Forest) to the Government of H.P. and also considering the reports dated 14.1.2018, 18.1.2018 and 15.3.2018, placed on record, learned Division Bench vide order 17.5.2018, had directed for registration of FIR against all officers/officials responsible for illicit felling of 463 trees in the Forest Range Koti, besides taking immediate disciplinary action against all such officers/officials and also to recover the cost of plantation at the place, where illicit felling had taken place, from petitioner Bhoop Ram and in addition thereto, petitioner Bhoop Ram was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.34,68, 233/-, the value of fallen trees, ascertained by the Forest Department in the Registry of the Court within two weeks from the date of passing of order. In addition to ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 22:58:06 :::HCHP above, liberty to State was also granted to move for cancellation of his bail. Relevant directions passed against .
the petitioner Bhoop Ram are as under:-
"17(c) From the affidavit dated 12 th March, 2018 filed by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Shimla Forest Circle, it is apparent that 2750 trees of Deodar and Ban species stand planted over 2.5 hectares of area, where illicit felling took place. Also, 12 number of Chek Dams so as to check soil erosion stand constructed. This was so required to channelize the nallah. The cost so undertaken must be recovered from Shri Bhoop Ram. In addition, he shall also deposit a sum of Rs.34,68,233/- (the value ascertained by the forest officials of the felled trees), in the Registry of this Court within a period of two weeks from today.
17(d) It shall be open for the State to move an appropriate application seeking cancellation of bail of Sh. Bhoop Ram and we are confident that the appropriate Court shall deal with the same, in accordance with law."
5. Being aggrieved by the direction to deposit Rs.34,68,233/- and direction to recover the cost of plantation from the petitioner, he had preferred Special Leave to Appeal (c) No. 15028 of 2018 wherein Hon'ble the Apex Court vide order dated 6.6.2018, had modified the impugned order allowing the petitioner to deposit 50% of amount, instead of depositing the entire amount and to furnish security for the remaining amount within four weeks ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 22:58:06 :::HCHP from the date of passing the order, but subject to further order of the High Court and it was also ordered that during .
the period of four weeks, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner.
6. However, petitioner/accused had neither deposited 50% of the amount nor furnished the security for the remaining amount within stipulated period, as ordered by Hon'ble the Apex Court. Thereafter the learned Division Bench of this High Court in CWPIL No. 45 of 2018, vide order dated 24.7.2018, had directed the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla H.P. that "4 Under these circumstances, we are left with no option but to direct the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, HP
(a) to forthwith take all measures for identifying the property owned by Shri Bhoop Ram and his family;
(b) putting the property owned by him on sale; and
(c) recover the amount being 50% of the amount to be deposited and 50% of the amount to be secured by furnishing a security, in terms of directions issued, as arrears of land revenue and deposit the same in the Registry of this Court."
7 Default in depositing the amount by the petitioner/accused was also considered a willful disobedience of order passed by the Court and therefore, learned Division Bench had also passed the following order:-
::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 22:58:06 :::HCHP"Prima facie, we find the act and conduct of Shri Bhoop Ram to be that of willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court as modified by the .
Apex Court and as such, before we take any further action, we issue him show cause notice explaining as to why proceedings for contempt be not initiated against him. Mr. Varinder Kanwar, Advocate, for Shri Bhoop Ram (respondent No.5) states that response shall be positively filed within two weeks."8
Division Bench had observed as under:
r to In the same order dated 24.7.2018, the learned "...6. We are also informed that State has filed an application, seeking cancellation of bail of Shri Bhoop Ram which is fixed for 26.7.2018.
7. Mr. Ranjan Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General states that the District Attorney shall be instructed to apprise the Court concerned of the passing of the order(s) by this Court as also by the Hon'ble Apex Court, also requesting the said Court for expeditiously deciding such application."
9 Order dated 24.7.2018 passed in CWPIL No. 45of 2018 was also assailed by the petitioner/accused in the Apex Court by preferring Special Leave Petition(c) No. 21724 of 2018, wherein vide order dated 23.7.2018 Hon'ble the Apex Court had directed the petitioner to file an affidavit indicating the time required by him to deposit the amount and to place on record the documentary proof in ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 22:58:06 :::HCHP support of illness as well as treatment of his wife within three weeks with further direction that till next date of .
hearing the house of petitioner/accused, which stands attached, shall not be sold. Special Leave Petition was ordered to be listed after four weeks.
10 On 4.8.2018 application preferred by the State for cancellation of bail of petitioner/accused was listed before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, who after hearing the parties, has cancelled the bail granted to petitioner/accused by the said Magistrate on 24.1.2018 with following observations:-
"20. Thus, applying the aforesaid principles laid down in the above cited authorities to the case in hand although, the accused has not violated any of the conditions of the bail, however, the non compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court of H.P. directing the accused/respondent to pay the amount before the Registry of the Hon'ble High Court within the stipulated period has not been complied by the accused/respondent, which itself amount to misconduct by the accused/respondent and if the person who commits misconduct of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court is left at a liberty the same would sent wrong message in the society. Non compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court amounts ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 22:58:06 :::HCHP to taking concession of the liberty of abil that has been granted to the accused.
21. In Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State of Delhi .
and another 2017 STPL 15772 SC, it was held that if there is a need for larger public interest to ensure that criminal justice delivery system works efficiently, smoothly and in a fair manner and if personal liberty, of the individual has to be balance with the social interest then in that case social interest shall prevail."
11 Consequently, the petitioner/accused was taken into custody immediately after passing of order on 4.8.2018 as he was present in Court.
12 After arrest of petitioner/accused an Interim Application (IA) has been preferred by his son, under the instructions of petitioner/accused from jail, in the Apex Court in SLP(c) No. 21724 of 2018 for placing medical record of treatment of his wife on record with further submission that after passing of order dated 23.8.2018, wherein the petitioner was directed to tell the time required to deposit 50% of the amount, ordered by the Court, petitioner was taken into custody and is in jail and thus time of one year required for depositing the amount.
13 In the aforesaid background, present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 4.8.2018, whereby bail of petitioner/accused has been ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 22:58:06 :::HCHP cancelled by learned Judicial Magistrate, on the ground that the said impugned order amounts to review of order dated .
24.1.2018, passed by Judicial Magistrate granting the bail to petitioner/accused, which is impermissible under law particularly keeping in view the provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C. and further that failure to deposit of amount in pursuance to the directions issued by the Division Bench of the High Court as modified by the Apex Court has wrongly been considered by the Magistrate as a misconduct warranting the cancellation of bail; and further that on failure to deposit the amount, the Division Bench, vide order dated 24.7.2018, has ordered the sale of property of petitioner/accused with further direction to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue resulting into attachment of house of petitioner and also on considering non-deposit of amount a willful disobedience, the show cause notice, for explaining as to why proceedings of the contempt be not initiated against him, has also been issued and therefore, the cancellation of bail for the same act for which he has already been taken to task by the Division Bench is amounting to double jeopardy to the petitioner/accused. It is also canvassed that on the one hand, petitioner is being asked to deposit the amount and ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 22:58:06 :::HCHP on the other hand, he has been put behind the bars disabling him from arranging the money for compliance of .
orders of the Court. Lastly, it is contended that conditions for cancelling bail is entirely different from the conditions granting bail and learned Magistrate has failed to distinguish the same and has committed illegality by cancelling the bail of petitioner/accused as non-payment of cannot be r the amount in pursuance to the civil liability imposed by the Court basis for cancellation particularly, when the petitioner/accused has not violated of bail any of the terms and conditions imposed upon him at the time of grant of bail.
14 Learned counsel, in support of his submissions, has relied upon Dolat Ram and others vs. State of Haryana (1995)1 SCC 349, Mehboob Dawood Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra (2004)2 SCC 362, Shyam Singh vs. State through CBI (2006)2 SCC (Cri) 613 and Central Bureau of Investigation Hyderabad vs. Subramani Gopal Krishnan and another (2011)5 SCC 296 and Abdul Basit alias Raju and others vs. Mohd.Abdul Kadir Chuadhary and another (2014)10 SCC 754.
15 In the present case,issue of scope of power of cancellation of bail after its grant is involved. Section 437(5) Cr.P.C. empower a Magistrate to cancel the bail granted by him.
::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 22:58:06 :::HCHP16 Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Sub-section (2) also contains provisions for arresting and committing a person to .
custody after his release on bail by the High Court or Court of Sessions.
17 Section 362 Cr.P.C. creates a bar upon Court from altering or reviewing its judgment or final order disposing of a case except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.
18For considering this issue involved in present case, provision of Sections 437, 439 and 362 Cr.P.C. would be relevant, which read as under:-
437.When bail may be taken in case of non-
offence-
(1) When any person accused of, or suspected of, the commission of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station or appears or is brought before a Court other than the High Court or Court of Session, he may be released on bail, but-
(i) such person shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life;
(ii) such person shall not be so released if such offence is a cognizable offence and he had been previously convicted of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for seven years or more, or he had been previously convicted on two or more occasions of a cognizable offence punishable with ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 22:58:06 :::HCHP imprisonment for three years or more but not less than seven years:
Provided that the Court may direct that a person .
referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) be released on bail if such person is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm:
Provided further that the Court may also direct that a person referred to in clause (ii) be released on bail if it is satisfied that it is just and proper so to do for any other special reason:
(Provided also that the mere fact that an accused person may be required for being identified by witnesses during investigation shall not be sufficient ground for refusing to grant bail if he is otherwise entitled to be released on bail and gives an undertaking that he shall comply with such directions as may be given by the Court.).....
(2) If it appears to such officer or Court at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case may be, that there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non- bailable offence, but that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his 1 guilt (the accused shall, subject to the provisions of section 446A and pending such inquiry, be released on bail) or, at the discretion of such officer or Court on the execution by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance as hereinafter provided.
(3) When a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or of an offence under Chapter VI, Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or abetment of, or conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offence, is released on bail under sub-section (1), (the Court may impose any condition,-::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 22:58:06 :::HCHP
(a) that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter, or
(b) that such person shall not commit an offence similar to .
the offence of which he is accused or of the commission of which he is suspected, and
(c) That such person shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence, may also impose, in the interests of justice, such other conditions as it considers necessary.) (4) An officer or a Court releasing any person on bail under sub- section (1) or sub- section (2), shall record in writing his or its reasons or special seasons] for so doing.
(5) Any Court which has released a person on bail under sub- section (1) or sub- section (2), may, if it considers it necessary so to do, direct that such person be arrested and commit him to custody.
(6) If, in any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non- bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs.
(7) If, at any time after the conclusion of the trial of a person accused of a non- bailable offence and before judgment is delivered, the Court is of opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of any such offence, it shall release the accused, if he is in custody, on the execution by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance to hear judgment delivered.
::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 22:58:06 :::HCHP.
"439. Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail.
(1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct-
(a) that any person accused of an offence and in custody be released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in subsection (3) of section 437, may impose any condition which it considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that sub- section;
(b) that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing an person on bail be set aside or modified:
Provided that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence which is triable exclusively by the Court of Session or which, though not so triable, is punishable with imprisonment for life, give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor unless it is, for reasons to be recorded in writing, of opinion that it is not practicable to give such notice."
(2) A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Section be arrested and commit him to custody.
362. Court not to alter judgement: Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error."
::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 22:58:06 :::HCHP19 In Shyam Singh's case (cited supra) petitioner was released on bail by the High Court imposing a condition .
to make payment of Rs.1 lacs per month after his release on bail. However, the said condition was set aside by the Apex Court holding that it is, of course, open to the Court to grant or refuse bail, but to assume that an offence has been committed even at the stage of granting bail and to direct in Dolat Ram, Mehboob repayment of any amount is both onerous and unwarranted.
20 Considering pronouncements of the Apex Court
Dawood and Subramani Gopal
Krishnan's cases supra, it emerges that it is settled that there is difference between yardsticks for cancellation of bail and appeal against the order granting bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. Generally speaking, the ground for cancellation of bail are, interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concessions granted to the accused in any manner. These are all only few illustrative materials. The satisfaction of the Court on the basis of the material placed on record of the possibility of the accused absconding is another reason justifying the ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 22:58:06 :::HCHP cancellation of bail. In other words, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without .
considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. Rejection of bail stands on different footing as cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it 21 r to takes away the liberty of an individual granted and is not to be lightly resorted to.
In Abdul Basi's case (supra) considering the scope of power of the Court to cancel the bail, the Apex Court has held that review of bail order and setting aside of the same on the ground that order granting the bail was unjustified, illegal or perverse is different from the concept of cancellation of bail on the ground of accused's misconduct or new adverse facts having surfaced after the grant of bail which requires such cancellation and it is held that order granting the bail, on the ground of being illegal or contrary to law, can only be set aside by the Court superior to the Court granting the bail and not by the same Court as Section 362 Cr.P.C. operates as a bar to any alteration or review of case disposed of by the Court except permitting correction of clerical or arithmetical errors by the said Court ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 22:58:06 :::HCHP and it is held that even the power to cancel the bail does not empower the Court to review its earlier order. As per .
ratio laid down by the Apex Court in this judgment the review of granting the bail is not permissible by the same Courts, but Court granting the bail under Section 437 or under Section 439 Cr.P.C. can definitely cancel the bail after considering the well established parameters for cancellation Mahboob Dawood Shalleh of bail, one of which have been discussed by the Apex Court in judgments cited suprta in cases of and Subramani Dolat Ram, Gopal Krishanan. Section 362 Cr.P.C. does not inhibit the Courts from exercising the power conferred under Section 437(5) Cr.P.C. Section 362 Cr.P.C. is not to be interpreted to render this provision redundant. As explained in Abdul Basit's case provisions of Section 437 (5) and 439(2) Cr.P.C.
operates in different situation than envisaged in Section 362 Cr.P.C. Therefore, plea of the petitioner/accused that Judicial Magistrate in view of the provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C. was not empowered to cancel the bail under Section 437(5) of Cr.P.C. is misconceived.
22 Whether there was sufficient material before Judicial Magistrate to cancel the bail or not is an issue to be considered hereinafter.
::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 22:58:06 :::HCHP23 In the present case at the time of grant of bail, certain conditions were imposed upon the .
petitioner/accused by Judicial Magistrate as enumerated herein-above. In the impugned order, learned Magistrate has itself observed that accused has not violated any of the conditions of bail. But learned Magistrate has considered the failure in depositing the amount by petitioner/accused in compliance of order passed by the High Court in CWPIL No. 45 of 2018 as modified by the Apex Court in SLPs, a misconduct warranting the cancellation of his bail on the ground that continuation of the petitioner/accused on bail would send a wrong message in the society and the Magistrate has considered this non-compliance amounting to taking concession of liberty of bail granted to accused.
24 The Division Bench of this Court in CWPIL 45 of 2018 has directed the petitioner/accused to deposit the certain amount to compensate the amount of public exchequer spent by the Forest Department for plantation of trees in the area wherefrom trees have been found to be fallen during last 3-4 years. The said order has been passed in civil proceedings and failure to compliance of such direction, passed in different context, cannot be made basis for cancellation of bail in a criminal case particularly when ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 22:58:06 :::HCHP the said order is under challenge in the Apex Court and further for non-compliance of which, the Division Bench of .
this High Court has already ordered for putting the property owned by petitioner on sale and to recover the amount to be deposited by the petitioner/accused as an arrears of land revenue and also, a notice proposing commencement of proceedings for contempt against the petitioner/accused has been issued.
25Order to deposit the amount was passed by the Division Bench on 17.5.2018, whereafter the Apex Court vide order dated 6.6.2018 had modified the said order with direction to deposit 50% and to furnish security for the remaining 50% within four weeks and thereafter for failure to comply with the order, the Division Bench vide order dated 24.7.2018 had taken punitive action against the petitioner by directing the sale of property owned by the petitioner/accused and proposing the initiation of contempt proceedings against him. Thereafter, on approaching the Apex Court by petitioner/accused by filing SLP No. 21724 of 2018, the Apex Court has asked the petitioner to file an affidavit to indicate the time required by him to deposit the amount and has stayed the selling of house of petitioner ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 22:58:06 :::HCHP attached in compliance of order passed by the Division Bench in CWPIL No. 45 of 2018.
.
26 It is true that vide order dated 17.5.2018 the Division Bench has granted liberty to the State to move an appropriate application seeking cancellation of bail of the petitioner/accused with further observations that appropriate Court shall deal with the same in accordance after having r been with law and thereafter vide order 24.7.2018, the Division Bench, informed about application for cancellation of bail of petitioner/accused, filing of had recorded the statement of learned Additional Advocate General whereby he had informed the Division Bench that District Attorney shall be instructed to apprise the Court concerned of passing of orders by the Division Bench of this Court as well as by the Apex Court with request for deciding the application for cancellation of bail expeditiously. But the liberty granted and observations made by the Division Bench in these orders does not amount to a direction to cancel the bail of petitioner/accused at any cost. The Division Bench, in unambiguous letters, had expressed its confidence on the concerned Court observing that appropriate Court shall deal with such application in accordance with law.
::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 22:58:06 :::HCHP27 It is not a case here where, by reason of super-
winning circumstances, it has come on record that it would .
be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the petitioner/accused to retain his freedom during trial or petitioner/accused has attempted to tamper or has hampered with prosecution witnesses, or has abused his liberty or there is a reasonable apprehension of his interference with the course of justice so as to warranting the Court to exercise the power to take him back in custody.
Power to cancel the bail has to be exercised with care and caution as it is a power of extra ordinary nature as the Courts have been empowered to cancel the bail granted by it despite the statutory bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C. to alter or review its decision.
28 Pronouncement of the Apex Court passed in Shyam Singh's case (supra) wherein imposition of condition of payment of Rs.1 lac per month after release on bail was considered as onerous and unwarranted is not applicable in present case as no such condition was and has been imposed at the time of grant of bail by learned Magistrate or any other Court.
29. In the present case, as noticed by learned Magistrate, petitioner/accused has not violated any ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 22:58:06 :::HCHP condition imposed upon him at the time of enlarging him on bail, but has cancelled the bail for non-deposit of amount as .
directed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Non-
payment of amount, directed to be deposited by the petitioner/accused in the writ petition, cannot be considered as a cancellation of bail by exercising the power under Section 437(5) of Cr.P.C.
30. There is difference between civil and criminal jurisprudence for fastening criminal and/or civil liability. As discussed above, learned Magistrate has failed to consider the application filed by State in accordance with law but was swayed by irrelevant circumstances which were not sufficient to cancel the bail ignoring well defined parameters established in various pronouncements of the Apex Court. Therefore, impugned order dated 4.8.2018 cancelling the bail of petitioner/accused is set aside and petitioner/accused is directed to be enlarged on bail and accordingly, he is ordered to be released on furnishing fresh personal bond in the sum of Rs.1 lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate.
::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 22:58:06 :::HCHP31 Petition stands disposed of including all pending .
miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(Vivek Singh Thakur)
November 19, 2018 (ms) Judge
r to
::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2018 22:58:06 :::HCHP